'Don't ask, don't tell' repeal a likely election casualty

By NANCY A. YOUSSEF AND DAVID LIGHTMAN, McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's call on Congress to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" is likely to founder after key House members were defeated in Tuesday's elections.

The House, which will be led by the GOP in January, is likely instead to push for an increase in the Defense Department's $708 billion budget and may take actions to keep the military prison at Guantanamo Bay open and to call for a shift in Afghanistan strategy, newly empowered Republicans and political observers said.

Among the losers in the House of Representatives were at least 10 Democrats on the Armed Services Committee, including Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri. Two-term Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pa., an Iraq war veteran who added an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would have repealed "don't ask, don't tell," also lost.

Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif., 72, a nine-term veteran, is expected to replace Skelton as committee chairman. Wednesday, McKeon called for leaving military spending largely intact. Previously, he said he favored leaving "don't ask, don't tell" on the books.

Congress could vote to repeal "don't ask, don't tell" during its lame-duck session, which begins on Nov. 15. But a Pentagon study on the impact of the repeal, which would allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, won't be completed until Dec. 1 and many top military commanders are against repealing the ban.

"It's hard to think of a Democrat who wants to risk the wrath even though people support" repealing the ban, said Lawrence Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal research group.

Once the new Congress convenes in January, few expect the Republican House leadership to press the issue.

With the defeat of Murphy, there's also no one with the credibility to offer up a repeal effort, Korb said.

"I don't think there is anyone else," Korb said.

A Republican-led House is also likely to clash with the Obama administration on other defense issues.

McKeon has been openly critical of the administration's proposed 1 percent increase in the Pentagon budget, calling it "a Defense Department in decline."

In a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation earlier this year, McKeon called a proposed decrease in weapons acquisition money "a sizeable and unacceptable decrease."

"One percent real growth over the next five years is a net cut for investment and procurement accounts," he said. "Pressures on the defense budget ... warrant a higher top line."

McKeon promised Wednesday to sustain the defense budget and said he intended tougher questioning of the administration's Afghanistan and terrorism policies.

"We must place a renewed emphasis on oversight," he said. "Our efforts will be relevant and directly tied to the front-line war fighter in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the protection of the U.S. homeland."

The Senate refused to take up the defense spending bill for fiscal year 2011, which began on Oct. 1, over Murphy's amendment to repeal "don't ask, don't tell." Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who survived a bruising re-election campaign, said Wednesday that he hopes to bring the legislation up for a vote during the lame-duck session.

However, he warned that such bills take a lot of time and that it may not be ready before the new Congress convenes next year.

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

This analysis fails to mention that the HOUSE of the 111th Congress has ALREADY voted on the Defense Authorization bill. The bill is up for consideration ONLY in the Senate during the lame-duck session.

All but two Dem Senators have already voted for cloture (essentially saying "yes" to the repeal) and more than a handful of GOP senators CLAIMED to want to support repeal. The passage of the larger bill is REQUIRED to keep the armed forces going.

As to the GOP plans with the defense budget, of course they're going to increase the deficit spending. That's what they do.

Gays in the military poses interesting challenges. Personally I think anyone who truly wants to serve their country should be welcome. However, with that said, if I were a woman in the military, I'm not sure how I would feel about the common more initmate housing and personal hygene aspects of group sharing. This to me is the main issue. Do you have hetrosexual women and mens accomodations and then gay women and men accomdation, or do you disregard the sexual preferences and just hope no one gets offended or physically afronted in the shower? I really don't think this is as much about gays serving as it is accomodating a third sexual entity. If rightfully accomodated, then there's a lot of work to do to keep the more initmate aspects of living together separate. No, I don't think it is fair to have a hetrosexual man showering while being eyed by another man who finds him sexually attractive. On the other hand I don't think it's fair to have a hetrosexual man berate a showermate because he is gay. So this comes down to tastefully housing people for sexual preference purposes. However you want to cut it, once out of bed, and how of the shower and dressed and ready for combat, at that point I don't think anyone really cares. People just don't want to have to be on guard all the time because of community housing accomodations. If the military is going to put that burdon on the existing troops in the service, then hell, just tear down the walls and put men, women, hetrosexuals, gays all in the same beds and showers and just hope for the best.